Other articles from this issue | Version in English | Version in French
New Vatican Guidelines and Link between Land and People
The Editors
As shown by both Jewish and Christian response to the new Vatican Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate (No. 4) (see SIDIC Vol. VIII No. 1), one of the points arousing strongest reaction has been the absence of reference to the link between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. At the same time, the Guidelines exhorts: n Christians must therefore strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the religious tradition of Judaism; they must strive to learn by what essential traits the Jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.. To stimulate study and reflection, therefore, we are presenting here some of the reactions and comments which have appeared in the press.* Hopefully this sampling of the various positions will make clear the vital importance of this question for the future development of Jewish-Christian relations.
There was strong reaction from certain quarters in Israel:
Thus, for Dr. Yitzhak Rafael, Israeli minister for religious affairs, this document presents no significant change .. For him there is no more basis for theological dialogue between Judaism and Christianity than before a and the fact that it makes no mention of the State of Israel proves that the Church is still far from recognizing the religious and historical links between the Jewish people and Israel .. ... The chief rabbi of Israel, Shlomo Goren, declared in this regard: There is only one way for the Vatican to put an end to its traditional hostility towards Judaism: that is, to recognize Israel and the historical and religious bond between the Jews and their land, and by its intervention to help stop persecutions against Jews in countries where they are humiliated and oppressed (. Un document du Vatican sur les relations avec le judaIsme ., Informations Catholiques Internationales [France], 15 janv. 1975).
In the United States, both praise and disappointment were expressed:
Although the lack of reference to Israel or the Land of Israel is disappointing the guidelines are nevertheless an affirmative step forward and a good worldwide working document which will open new vistas in Catholic education and new perspectives in liturgy (Seymour Graubard, Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, New York, Jan. 3, 1975).
While the Guidelines represents in its entirety a positive contribution to the improvement of Catholic and Jewish understanding, it left unresolved several critical questions, namely that of a place of Israel in Jewish life, a clear Catholic policy on proselytization regarding Jews, and an adequate Christian understanding of Judaism as a living religion (Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum [American Jewish Committee], Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Jan. 5, 1975).
Christian disappointment was also voiced:
The uneasiness I experienced after reading the document is due to a feeling of having been let down, and this feeling comes from the fact that throughout the whole document there is no mention of the State of Israel. Yet, when one realizes the role played by the State of Israel in the deep religious life of present-day Judaism in so far as the State is the land, the land on which the Torah can be freely lived, one cannot fail to be amazed that Ignoring thus the concrete existence of Israel anybody could dare to speak of open and fraternal dialogue with Judaism (Germaine A. Ribiere, Un silence ., Information Juive [France], janv. 1975).
Some Christian commentators link the question of the land explicitly with the notion of peoplehood:
The Judaism about which the document speaks is an abstraction; the Jews who appear in it are « wandering Jews ". Where is the people that has encountered the only one God, that has received the Word of God in the Torah of the Covenant, based on God's permanent promise, etc. ... It has been noted that the Vatican document does not mention the State of Israel. One can find this strange or very understandable in the actual situation. But that is not the heart of the question ... The real question is: does Judaism consist of a number of individual followers of a religion or does it only really exist in a people among the peoples, a people that is not different from other peoples and that at the same time is conscious of its own proper task in the world, which is described in the Bible and which is transmitted from one generation to the next by an uninterrupted tradition. ... (Prof. Th. C. de Kruijf, « Vaticaanse verklaring over jodendom: een tragisch document ., De Tijd [The Netherlands], 24 jan. 1975).
In this document the Church still does not want to declare that the Jewish people as such, and not just the Jewish religion, has its own place (i.e. in salvation history). A religious document in which the link of the Jewish people as such with the Land of Israel — I do not say the State of Israel — is not mentioned, can hardly be taken seriously in Israel ... (Msgr, A.C. Ramselaar, « De Vatikaanse voorkeur voor de Arabieren Vrij Nederland [The Netherlands], 18 jan. 1975).
The Vatican will one day have to take into account in its theology not only the religious aspect of Judaism but the whole Jewish people, including Israel as a state. Whether it wants to or not it will also have to analyse the historico-religious ties which bind the People of Israel to the land of its fathers of the Old Covenant (Clemens Thoma, Vatikanische Richtlinien and Hinweise fib. die Durchflihrung der Konzilserklŕrung 'Nostra Aetate', Nr. 4 vom 3. Januar 1975: Wortlaut and Kommentar Freiburger Rundbrief [Germany], Jahrgang XXVI 1974, Nummer 97/100).
Several commentators quote sections of the 1973 French Episcopal Committee document (see SIDIC, Vol VI No 2, 1973) noting the lack of similar insight in the recent Guidelines:
The pastoral directives published by the French episcopate in April 1973 resumed all this: « ... we as Christians were invited to « take into account the way in which the regathering around Jerusalem is interpreted by those Jews who, in the name of their faith, look on it as a blessing " (Paul Giniewski, Journal de Geneve [Switzerland], 10 janv. 1975).
Is it indeed possible to speak of Judaism as the Jews themselves understand it and to exclude the land of Israel which is an essential element of the promise? According to the Bible this land was given to them by God and the Return was foretold by the prophets. No theological argument can overcome these biblical facts. The document of the French Episcopal Committee is much more clearsighted on this point. It states plainly that the universal conscience cannot refuse to the Jewish people, which has suffered so many vicissitudes during the course of its history, the right to and the possibility of its own political existence among the nations of the world (Chief Rabbi Emmanuel Bulz, Christianisme et judaisme: oilt en sommes-nous? (Luxemburger Wort [Luxembourg], 15 marz 1975).
Both Jews and Christians pose the question: Why this silence on the part of the Guidelines?
« Beyond the legitimate diversity of political options the universal conscience cannot deny the Jewish people, who in the course of history has suffered such vicissitudes, the right to its own political existence among the nations and the means necessary to pursue it.. It was in these unequivocal terms that the French Episcopal Committee for relations with Judaism recognized, on April 16, 1973, the indissoluble links binding the Jewish people to Israel. Why did the Roman document remain silent on the central, dynamic place that Israel occupies in the Jewish reality from the religious, historical and cultural points of view? (Andre Elbaz, « Le silence decevant de Rome sur I'Etat d'Israel
Le Devoir [Canada], 26 fey. 1975).
... this document is very important, and one can only rejoice at its proposals. Yet, why, after reading it, does one feel uneasy and remain hungry? If one remains hungry the reason is that the document is, unfortunately, incomplete. I am certainly faithful to my Church and respectful of its hierarchy, but I must say that I expected a word, an allusion to the Land, the Land of Israel to which from the time of Abraham until our own the Jewish people is so profoundly attached. The newspaper La Croix said that this document would « disappoint the Jews who, for the most part, feel solidarity with those of their people who have settled in the land of their ancestors .. I am not a Jew but from my first reading of the document I said: It is good, but I expected much more, some thing much better.. And I realize there are other Christians who think as I do. Why this silence? (Pere Roger Braun, Un document pontifical sur les relations juddo-chr6tiennes » (Le droit de Vivre [France], No. 399, fey. 1975).
Several attempts are made to reply to this why », among them the following:
Firstly, the document should not be interpreted as a joint declaration. It is unilateral and aimed at Catholics. In the present state of our dialogue, we wouldn't ask Jews to describe Catholicism in a way that would be acceptable to us, and so we do not wish Jews to request a Catholic description of Judaism. The only solution is to avoid description as far as possible and limit oneself to suggestions for concrete steps to be taken, which is what the document tried to do, This is one reason for our failure to mention Judaism's tie to peoplehood and land ". After all, the Guidelines contains no references to other essential aspects of the Jewish religion or way of life, such as the Sabbath, circumcision, Halachah, Kashruth, etc. We hardly even mentioned the basic concept of God's unity, so why should we have singled out land and peoplehood .? (Fr. Pierre Decontenson [Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews], The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 30, 1975).
What is stressed with bitterness in Jewish reactions is the absence of all reference to the vital links which in Jewish tradition unite the people, the Bible (Torah) and the land. It suffices for us to recall the violent polemic engendered by the Pastoral Orientations of the French episcopate, which mention this link, in order to understand the caution of the Vatican in a document addressed to the universal Church. In the atmosphere of passion that surrounds everything connected with the agonizing problem of the Middle East, any mention of « the land . cannot avoid a political • overtones even in a document in-fended by its authors to have a purely religious significance (Sr. Marie-Noölle, Une impulsion dans un domaine qui en avait grand besoin a, Le Devoir [Canada], 18 janv. 1975).
Doubtless it is possible to attribute the reserve of the document to fear of political interpretations and reactions, which, as we know only too well, would not be wanting! It is also possible, and this more legitimately, to interpret this silence as motivated by a determination not to take a stand on a question that is debated even among Christians and which should remain open. Finally and above all, we must remember that the new secretariat is only beginning its work. It could not go forward on a terrain which, as everybody knows, is extremely difficult and full of hazards, without a great deal of patient consultation and advice. This is the work which henceforth it should undertake. The role of Rome is perhaps less to stimulate theological reflection than to provoke confrontation, and then to coordinate the very diverse reactions expressed in the different parts of the Christian world (Bernard Dupuy, Un nouveau pas en avant a, Le Monde [France], 4 janv. 1975).
A comprehensive study of the background of the Guidelines (which includes a comparison with its 1969 draft entitled Reflections and Suggestions) makes the following remarks:
The basic difference between the two texts, therefore, lies in the fact that after the recognition of Jewish self-definition — a recognition common to both texts — Reflections lists the essential traits by which the Jews define themselves, while Guidelines and Suggestions maintains an absolute silence about the question. The list in Reflections seems purposely made to underline those constitutive elements of Judaism which the Christian has always had difficulty in really understanding: the consciousness of the historical community of the people that finds its origin and foundation in the divine election and covenant; the interpretation of the Torah as eternal gift of God; the remembrance of the promise of the Land which was handed on through Jewish prayer, liturgy and literature (Renzo Fabris, a La prudenza degli "orientamenti" e dei "suggerimenti" vaticani sugli ebrei a, II Regno [Italy], 15 marzo 1975).
In spite of disappointment at the silence evident in the Vatican Guidelines as it stands, most commentators appreciate the document as an important step forward and find hope and the possibility of positive development even in that very silence:
Consequently there are at least two currents of Christian thelogical thought on Israel. It is true that the Vatican does not explicitly condemn those who read the declaration of the French bishops, but its prudence has recently burst forth. Its guidelines contradict neither one current nor the other (Paul Giniewski, a Le Vatican et les juifs a, Journal de Geneve [Switzerland], 10 janv. 1975).
Nevertheless, Guidelines and Suggestions — even though it kept silent — has left the question open so that, in fact, it has called the Christian's attention to the elements of Jewish self-definition. The Vatican declaration, in fact, stands there to point out the road along which the Christian must necessarily find the Jewish consciousness of the covenant, the Torah and the land of Israel. It is on this road, now, that the Christian must proceed in obedience to the suggestions of the Vatican commission (Renzo Fabris, a La prudenza degli "orientamenti" e dei "suggerimenti" vaticani sugli ebrei a, II Regno [Italy], 15 marzo 1975).
